Legal Opinion

Burnham v. Department of Social & Health Services

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 7, 2003No. 28292-5-IIPublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bridgewater, J. —

Wilma Burnham applied for Medicaid coverage of costs associated with her service animal. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) denied coverage because Burnham’s service animal is not “durable medical equipment” or a “prosthetic device.” The superior court affirmed DSHS’ final order. We affirm, holding that other relevant sections of the Washington Administrative Code describing durable medical equipment support DSHS’ determination that service animals are not equipment, and the animal does not qualify as a prosthetic device because it *437does not remedy a deficient…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State v. KellerWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Department of EcologyWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Weyerhaeuser Company v. TriWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Cannon v. Department of LicensingWashington Supreme Court · 2002

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Utter v. Department of Social & Health ServicesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  2. Utter v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOC. & HEALTH SER.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  3. Burnham v. STATE, DSHSCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  4. Timberlane Mobile Home Park v. Human Rights Commission ex rel. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  5. Timberlane Mobile Home Park v. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COM'NCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API